The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

???
Your posts are so convoluted, large and divergent there is not much chance of me recognizing a request for an answer. I also attempt to keep my replies breif so as not to confuse the issue/s raised.

I could see why you would be confused considering what you posted is not a reflection of reality.

Done wisely it is a far better approach to sell off unproductive assets and replace them with productive ones. Having a small state house on a large section of land (not uncommon) that gets sold off and then replaced with 2/3/4 houses on the equivalent area of land makes a lot of sense, especially if a genuine approach to "housing people" is taken.

Only they never did that, they sold off plenty but built far less.
93-99 it shrunk by 10,000 dwellings National
99-2008 it grew by 8,000 Labour
2008-2017-Srunk by 8,500 under National

They then spent the money renting out motels. plus doing extensive decontamination that were never required on others
Kind of odd maths?
But it worked out great if you owned real estate companies or Motel Chains like National parties big donors.
Sep 2017

Tonight's news presented the fact that Liarbour is demolishing 2000 state houses in Porirua.
Strange how the professionally offended are not out there protesting this "heinous action".

So what is the story?
Are they renewing state houses to build far more newer ones or just destroying houses?
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=113676
http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=113685
As i said despite your protestations that national sold off houses to build more, Only the selling off ever occurred. there was a net loss of tens of thousands of houses.
Thats why you never replied to my post.

Here is a hint what you suggested National did and was a great idea they never did at all they only sold off houses
But Labour are doing what you suggested was a great idea building far more on the same footprint only you are moaning about it now being a bad thing.

[Ocean1]

???
Your posts are so convoluted, large and divergent there is not much chance of me recognizing a request for an answer. I also attempt to keep my replies breif so as not to confuse the issue/s raised.

The correct answer is "both".

It looks like the deluded cunt is being shown for what he (& they) really are...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12154010

My old boss had a name for the endless reviews and changes in direction of his various proclamations, he called them "living documents", a concept Husa has obviously well and truly taken to heart.

Also, well duhh. Faced with the prospect of meeting their promises of cheap housing for the poor and the laughably unlikely prospect of anyone else actually agreeing to pay for them they're stuck with whatever slight-of-hand bullshit might paper over the yawning gulf between their ideological foot stamping about the "housing crisis" and the real world.

But it keeps them off the streets I guess, which means they're just that much less likely to be paying too much attention to the business of how to convert my savings into govt revenue.

[husaberg]

My old boss had a name for the endless reviews and changes in direction of his various proclamations, he called them "living documents", a concept Husa has obviously well and truly taken to heart.

Also, well duhh. Faced with the prospect of meeting their promises of cheap housing for the poor and the laughably unlikely prospect of anyone else actually agreeing to pay for them they're stuck with whatever slight-of-hand bullshit might paper over the yawning gulf between their ideological foot stamping about the "housing crisis" and the real world.
But it keeps them off the streets I guess, which means they're just that much less likely to be paying too much attention to the business of how to convert my savings into govt revenue.

Poor is now defined in the Auckland house market as those earning less than twice the average take home income of a Auckland couple.

To buy a first home in Auckland First home buyers would need a deposit of about $120,000 to $130,000 and a joint income above $160,000.
Auckland workers have a median personal income of $29,600, and a median household income of $76,500, according to the latest Census.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/pro...n-dollar-house
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/9138...epending-where

Not that Auckland has a housing crisis of course National left a rock star economy.

[Ocean1]

Poor is now defined in the Auckland house market as those earning less than twice the average take home income of a Auckland couple.

Aye, the proliferation of people not prepared to work hard enough to pay for their shit is disgusting.

And they expect everyone else to work harder instead!

[husaberg]

Aye, the proliferation of people not prepared to work hard enough to pay for their shit is disgusting.

And they expect everyone else to work harder instead!

Yeah those lazy bottom 80 percentile who pay 99.9% of the tax.

[Ocean1]

Yeah those lazy bottom 80 percentile who pay 99.9% of the tax.

You really don't live on this planet, do you?

https://treasury.govt.nz/information...ays-income-tax

That lazy bottom 80% are contributing just 30% of the total tax take.

The poor bastards earning over $100k are paying half of the total.

And those rich pricks earning over $150k are paying 25% of it.

God knows what your despised most productive 1% are contributing but interpolating from the above their contributions are worth the equivalent of thousands of your average kiwis.

Last time I looked if your household income was under $65k you are a negative net contributor, you cost more to support than you pay in tax. About half of NZ households are beneficiaries, dependent on the other half working harder to support them. And that doesn't include pensioners.

No mater how many rev's you put on it, that's a welfare state on steroids. Runaway socialism. Unsustainable.

[husaberg]

You really don't live on this planet, do you?

https://treasury.govt.nz/information...ays-income-tax

That lazy bottom 80% are contributing just 30% of the total tax take.

The poor bastards earning over $100k are paying half of the total.

And those rich pricks earning over $150k are paying 25% of it.

God knows what your despised most productive 1% are contributing but interpolating from the above their contributions are worth the equivalent of thousands of your average kiwis.

Last time I looked if your household income was under $65k you are a negative net contributor, you cost more to support than you pay in tax. About half of NZ households are beneficiaries, dependent on the other half working harder to support them. And that doesn't include pensioners.

No mater how many rev's you put on it, that's a welfare state on steroids. Runaway socialism. Unsustainable.

I dont despise any group of people it is you who seem to despise the poor.
Remember in my example the uckland poor were those under 150K using your figures my point still works. So cheers for the figures.

Your assertions do not however make sense as NZ has numerous tax systems other than income alone. GST FBT etc
NZ's tax system works on a sliding scale the more you earn the higher percentage you pay. Thats the system deal with it.
When you factor in GST you will see the tax take you produced is not that equitable as you claim.
The poor pay the GST the poor also dont increase their equity tax fee by using it to pay off a house either.

None of these figures you produce, of course, includes capital gains (income made from selling assets such as houses and shares), because we don’t for the most part either tax or record those capital gains.
If we did, since those capital gains will go largely to the richest tenth, the truth about tax in New Zealand is that the rich almost certainly pay less of their income in tax than the poor do.

Overall the lower and middle classes pay more than they should and a higher share than they ever have before.
Thats why in NZ the equality of Rich to poor is growing every day and is higher than ever. 10% have 60% of NZ wealth.


Under national the home ownership rate dropped by almost 10%.
So instead of that money being invested in personal equity of families its being lost to rent.
According to Stats NZ Nationals policies drove it down to the lowest its been in 66 years

As for your claims about benefits in NZ
Your figures about benefits dont seem to be supported by real data.

For instance the benefits you claim dont add up with the population, even if every house hold had kids it still wouldn't add up.
https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/ab...8-a3-final.pdf
Note the biggest increases under national were unemployment and emergency housing. All these rose because of Nationals mismanagement.
National had nine years and they did nothing other than sell off assets raise GST and borrow money to fund tax decreases.

[Voltaire]

Working hard is not the way to get ahead any more, I see lots of hard workers on the way to the office and they are probably on $20-$35 an

hour, unlikely to get a deposit together for even a 1 bed apartment these days. ( yes I've heard the rumour about life SOTB's)

I still have my electrical licence, hopefully don't have to use it again.

[sidecar bob]

Working hard is not the way to get ahead any more, I see lots of hard workers on the way to the office and they are probably on $20-$35 an

hour, unlikely to get a deposit together for even a 1 bed apartment these days. ( yes I've heard the rumour about life SOTB's)

I still have my electrical licence, hopefully don't have to use it again.

Yeah, see to me "hard work" and "office" don't really go in the same sentence.
How many calories can talking & tapping actually burn?

[Voltaire]

Yeah, see to me "hard work" and "office" don't really go in the same sentence.
How many calories can talking & tapping actually burn?

About 20K kms of walking a week according to my phone as I use a mix of private and public transportation, yet to try out Limes.
Do have to keep an eye on the flat whites though.
Would I go back to actual work.....no, can do that on the weekends.

[Ocean1]

I dont despise any group of people it is you who seem to despise the poor.
Remember in my example the uckland poor were those under 150K using your figures my point still works. So cheers for the figures.

Your assertions do not however make sense as NZ has numerous tax systems other than income alone. GST FBT etc
NZ's tax system works on a sliding scale the more you earn the higher percentage you pay. Thats the system deal with it.
When you factor in GST you will see the tax take you produced is not that equitable as you claim.
The poor pay the GST the poor also dont increase their equity tax fee by using it to pay off a house either.

None of these figures you produce, of course, includes capital gains (income made from selling assets such as houses and shares), because we don’t for the most part either tax or record those capital gains.
If we did, since those capital gains will go largely to the richest tenth, the truth about tax in New Zealand is that the rich almost certainly pay less of their income in tax than the poor do.

Overall the lower and middle classes pay more than they should and a higher share than they ever have before.
Thats why in NZ the equality of Rich to poor is growing every day and is higher than ever. 10% have 60% of NZ wealth.


Under national the home ownership rate dropped by almost 10%.
So instead of that money being invested in personal equity of families its being lost to rent.
According to Stats NZ Nationals policies drove it down to the lowest its been in 66 years

As for your claims about benefits in NZ
Your figures about benefits dont seem to be supported by real data.

For instance the benefits you claim dont add up with the population, even if every house hold had kids it still wouldn't add up.
https://www.msd.govt.nz/docuents/abo...8-a3-final.pdf
Note the biggest increases under national were unemployment and emergency housing. All these rose because of Nationals mismanagement.
National had nine years and they did nothing other than sell off assets raise GST and borrow money to fund tax decreases.

Hey I'm just quoting the treasury, I guess they could be wrong.

But if you ignore income tax, (by far the biggest revenue source) and somehow convince yourself that "the poor" pay proportionately more GST than anyone else you can probably make some claim that less than half of the households in the country cost the taxpayer more than they earn. But not a very credible one.

Also, arbitrarily repeating the claim that national spent less taxpayer's money to pay for housing for people who chose not to earn it themselves ad nausium misses the point entirely: That's what real the real world calls sustainable. Not something socialism has a great record with.

Oh, re the rich/poor thing, I don't know where you're getting your "facts" from but there's actually a UN contrived metric for that shit, (yeah i know, fuck the UN, eh?) It's called the gini coefficient. It's hardly budged for fucking years. Poor getting poorer.

[husaberg]

Hey I'm just quoting the treasury, I guess they could be wrong.

But if you ignore income tax, (by far the biggest revenue source) and somehow convince yourself that "the poor" pay proportionately more GST than anyone else you can probably make some claim that less than half of the households in the country cost the taxpayer more than they earn. But not a very credible one.

Also, arbitrarily repeating the claim that national spent less taxpayer's money to pay for housing for people who chose not to earn it themselves ad nausium misses the point entirely: That's what real the real world calls sustainable. Not something socialism has a great record with.

Oh, re the rich/poor thing, I don't know where you're getting your "facts" from but there's actually a UN contrived metric for that shit, (yeah i know, fuck the UN, eh?) It's called the gini coefficient. It's hardly budged for fucking years. Poor getting poorer.

No you are not presenting a full data set. no one is ignoring income tax just presenting that its only less than 50% of the take not the total take.

As i pointed out. whe you include it your figures dont stack up. As i provided data to show, You just produce right wing rhetoric and data taken out of context.


Maybe we need to show some real world data to show your latest asertions about how highly we tax the rich in NZ is just further right wing fiction.
Just data excludes the GST (or poor people tax.)


The point about the emergency housing benefit is pretty simple, if National hadn't sold off 10,0000 of state houses it would not have been needed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for motel accommodation now would it.
But i guess if your parties biggest donor for many years also hap[pens by pure coincidence to own the biggest motel chain in NZ thats great for business.

[Ocean1]

No you are not presenting a full data set. no one is ignoring income tax just presenting that its only less than 50% of the take not the total take.

As i pointed out. whe you include it your figures dont stack up. As i provided data to show, You just produce right wing rhetoric and data taken out of context.


Maybe we need to show some real world data to show your latest asertions about how highly we tax the rich in NZ is just further right wing fiction.
Just data excludes the GST (or poor people tax.)


The point about the emergency housing benefit is pretty simple, if National hadn't sold off 10,0000 of state houses it would not have been needed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for motel accommodation now would it.
But i guess if your parties biggest donor for many years also hap[pens by pure coincidence to own the biggest motel chain in NZ thats great for business.

Like I said, if you don't think the treasury's simple, uncomplicated graph showing how tax is disproportionately paid by high earners is right then take it up with them, I don't know where your pretty pictures come from but I'm pretty confident the treasury is right and you're wrong.

So your contention is that even though high earners provide a hugely disproportionate share of income tax that's offset by the fact that poor individuals pay far more GST?

And then you reckon rich people aren't paying a disproportionately high share of company tax, witholding tax and excise duty either?

Fuck me you're not only not on this planet you're not of this universe.

And let's get this straight for once and for all: Less people requiring charity to pay for their houses = Good, More people requiring charity to pay for their houses = Bad. So how about you re calibrate your "national bad, labour good" manta accordingly, eh?

[husaberg]

Like I said, if you don't think the treasury's simple, uncomplicated graph showing how tax is disproportionately paid by high earners is right then take it up with them, I don't know where your pretty pictures come from but I'm pretty confident the treasury is right and you're wrong.

So your contention is that even though high earners provide a hugely disproportionate share of income tax that's offset by the fact that poor individuals pay far more GST?

And then you reckon rich people aren't paying a disproportionately high share of company tax, witholding tax and excise duty either?
No the Treasury information relating to paye income tax is of course right its just only one part it does not include the other 50% of the tax we pay in NZ.As per normal you provide no data jusy rhetoric and then attempt to add stuff i never said.

Fuck me you're not only not on this planet you're not of this universe.

No ones "fucking you" other than john Keys crew hes done it to 90% of the country

And let's get this straight for once and for all: Less people requiring charity to pay for their houses = Good, More people requiring charity to pay for their houses = Bad. So how about you re calibrate your "national bad, labour good" manta accordingly, eh?

Less people being able to afford a house is bad less people being able to work and provide for themselves is bad.
National made it worse not better despite the attempted bribes they got chucked out.
By all metric incliuding GZDP growth overseas debt employment balance of trade National was shit for NZ Unless you are in the top 10% that has 50% of NZ wealth of course.
Or you were a large national donor or National MP.

Then it makes it easier to buy the needed 55 MP's its likely 1005 tax deductible as well.

[Ocean1]

So your contention is that even though high earners provide a hugely disproportionate share of income tax that's offset by the fact that poor individuals pay far more GST?

And then you reckon rich people aren't paying a disproportionately high share of company tax, witholding tax and excise duty either?
No the Treasury information relating to paye income tax is of course right its just only one part it does not include the other 50% of the tax we pay in NZ.As per normal you provide no data jusy rhetoric and then attempt to add stuff i never said.

No ones "fucking you" other than john Keys crew hes done it to 90% of the country


Less people being able to afford a house is bad less people being able to work and provide for themselves is bad.
National made it worse not better despite the attempted bribes they got chucked out.
By all metric incliuding GZDP growth overseas debt employment balance of trade National was shit for NZ Unless you are in the top 10% that has 50% of NZ wealth of course.
Or you were a large national donor or National MP.

Then it makes it easier to buy the needed 55 MP's its likely 1005 tax deductible as well.

Right, glad you're happy with treasury data showing high earners supply disproportionately more of the tax take.

Now you just need to explain how a less than high earner pays more GST, 'cause I reckon you've got that fucking backwards too.

And let's just skirt the relative contributions in company tax ,withholding tax and excise tax, eh, 'cause I'm pretty sure even you can't pretend that's mostly extorted from the poor.

Oh I agree completely, bad indeed. Those fuckers need to get their shit together and not depend on the taxpayer to support them.

See, we agree on most things after all. Except you really do got to reign in that "but national" shtick, that shit's just pathetic.